ROOTS OF LANGUAGE. 289 



would not merely admit of immediate understandlnfr on the 

 part of others, but, what is even of more importance, they 

 would, by the mere fact of such conventional usage of names, 

 elevate what had previously been but a receptual appreciation 

 of an act into a pre-conceptual designation of it. 



Now, I say that this hypothesis, whatever may be thought 

 as to its probability, is clearly but a special branch of the 

 general theory of onomatopoeia. So that primitive names 

 were intentionally imitative of natural sounds, for all the pur- 

 poses of onomatopoetic theory it makes no difference whether 

 such sounds were made by natural objects or by man himself. 

 Nor, of the natural sounds which were made by man himself, 

 does it in any way afitcct this theory whether the naturally 

 human sounds were "interjectional" only, "co-operative" only, 

 or sometimes one and sometimes the other. If, following the 

 example set by Professor Max Miiller, I may be allowed to 

 designate Noire's special branch of the onomatopoetic theory 

 as the Yeo-he-ho theory, it appears to me impossible to distin- 

 guish it in any essential particular from those other branches 

 which are called by him the Bow-wow and Pooh-pooh theories 

 — i.e. the imitative and the interjectional. Yet he has become 

 as ardent a supporter of the one branch as he was a vehement 

 opponent of the others.* 



• Probably the explanation of this apparent inconsistency is to be found in the 

 fact that Noire's special version of the onomatopoetic theory comes within easy 

 distance of a hypothesis which Max Miiller had himself previously sanctioned. 

 This hypothesis, originally p.-opounded by Heyse in his System dcr Sprachwissen- 

 schaft, is that, just as every inorganic substance in nature gives out a particular 

 sound when struck — metal one sound, wood another, stone another, &c. — so 

 different animals have inherent tendencies (or " mstincts ") to emit distinctive 

 sounds. In the case of primitive man this inherent tendency was in the direction 

 of articulate speech. For my own part, I do not see that this theory explains 

 anything ; and therefore agree with Geiger, who says of it : — " Die Annahme 

 cincs jetzt eiloschcnen Vermogens der Sprachschopfung und die damit zusammen- 

 hangende von eincm vollkommcncn Urzustande des Menschen ist eine Zuflucht 

 zum Unbegreiflichen, und nicht weit von dem Eingestandnisse entfernt, dass es 

 uns dcr Natur <kr Dingc nach fiir immer unmoglich sei, den wahren Sinn der 

 Urwurzcln zu erkenncn und den Vorgang des .Sprachursprunges zu crklaren. Wir 

 wurdcn mit einer solchen Annahme auf einen mystischen Standpunkt zurilck- 

 gcfuhrl scin, da doch schon Herder das ' Gespenst vom Wort Fahigkeit ' 

 bckampft und gcsagt hat: 'Jch gcbc den Menschen nicht glcich pliitzlich ncuc 



